Priority Picks fair?

[PowerOfThePussy]

Those stating that the draft does not work - what is your alternative - free trade?

If free trade ever comes in, I am afraid I will probably be lost to football along with many others. My club will fold before too long, along with the other struggling Melbourne clubs.

The draft may not be perfect, but at least it gives everybody a chance.

My club is very well run off the field. This, unfortunately does not buy my club anything if free trade came in. We can't get on TV as it is, can't get sponsors as easily as others for this very fact, can't get a Friday night game/blockbuster etc. How will my team compete? The draft is the only thing keeping us afloat at the moment. The AFL has stated that we must be winning to be shown on Free to Air - well how do we do that if there is no chance of rising up the ladder. (i.e. free trade = no-one will come to poorer clubs) The only way to rise up is to get good players - Hence draft. I for one am right behind it.

Cheers
POTP

 

[nutbeennn]

"There are no certainties in the draft except that the earlier the pick the bigger your chance of getting a gun"

BINGO !!!!!!

1/ There no certainties in the draft
2/ the earlier the pick the bigger the CHANCE of getting a gun.

Thats all you are getting a chance with no certainty.
AllStkilda were given was a chance to pick well and they have picked well and i believe Freo who have had more priority picks havent done as well.


If you finish down the ladder to even up the competition you are given a chance with no certainity.

Your honour, the defense rests

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by chemical
Chelsea is by far the best run club in the PL

Are you serious? What do you base that on? MU are the worlds favorite football club in any code. They have marketed themselves all over the world and they have maintained brilliance on and off the field for a long time.

 

[R00StaR]

Originally posted by Porthos
If you want to look at the impact of priority picks, you need to not so much look at the teams that got them, but at the teams who got bumped down the draft because of them.

For example Kangaroos finished 13th and had their first pick at #7 in 2001 when it should've been #4.

Thats Hale instead of Polak.
Geelong with Bartel instead of Xavier Clarke.
Melbourne with Luke Molan instead of Ashley Sampi.

Its not like the AFL just magically create extra players to give away as priority picks, you're taking them from somewhere and it is felt the most by teams that only just missed out on the threshold for priority picks by winning instead of losing.

Well said, it’s a huge advantage and very understated by some. Just using the Saints as example here, they get pick 1 and 2, then only a few picks after a team that finished 5th they get another pick. That’s close enough to 3 round 1 picks, with 2 of those being the best in the land. Just doesn’t pay to finish middle of the road, unless your already topped up with quality kids.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Deej
And having heaps of money is also no guarantee of success, so why not just open it all up and see who really is the best?

Because clubs would fold.

A couple of high flyers seeking some sort of gratification by buying themselves a club would destroy AFL football.

Since the commision was formed, the salary cap and draft, we haven't had to worry about this.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by Deej
And having heaps of money is also no guarantee of success, so why not just open it all up and see who really is the best?

because having no money (Dogs, Kangas, Geelong and others) is a guarantee of failure. Get it? And those clubs deserve as much consideration as every other club in most people's eyes. Not in yours, however, as you'd be happy to let them die.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by MarkT
yes you can trade players for picks so if you like you can get a ready made instead of a gun 18 year old for being crap. I don't see the relevance.

freo traded for the ready made Croad ? that didnt work
Melbourne traded Kelly for Bizzel - worked probably better for melbourne but who knows with kelly.

finishing bottom gives you the CHANCE - nothing more....no certainties..thats what not being understood.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by R00StaR
Well said, it’s a huge advantage and very understated by some. Just using the Saints as example here, they get pick 1 and 2, then only a few picks after a team that finished 5th they get another pick. That’s close enough to 3 round 1 picks, with 2 of those being the best in the land. Just doesn’t pay to finish middle of the road, unless your already topped up with quality kids.

WTF?

You can only get two first round picks MAX! Any other come from trading you dill!

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
If you finish down the ladder to even up the competition you are given a chance with no certainity.

Your honour, the defense rests

That's a weak defense if you ask me. You get a mkuch much greater chance in the only youth recruiting mechanism there is if you finish last as compared to if you play finals finish say 6th. If these picks were not valuable we'd get one for Andrew Williams, Ben Kinnear and Steve McKee. Of course there is no certainty but how does that change anything at all? If I tell Scott Burns was drafted in the 90's does that make the 90's where you want to be in the draft? Of course not. If I tell you Collingwood drafted Danny Roach at 7 does that mean 90something is better than 7? Of course not. Sure it's a lottery but it's not tattlotto odds early on in the pecking order.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by MarkT
That's a weak defense if you ask me. You get a mkuch much greater chance in the only youth recruiting mechanism there is if you finish last as compared to if you play finals finish say 6th. If these picks were not valuable we'd get one for Andrew Williams, Ben Kinnear and Steve McKee. Of course there is no certainty but how does that change anything at all? If I tell Scott Burns was drafted in the 90's does that make the 90's where you want to be in the draft? Of course not. If I tell you Collingwood drafted Danny Roach at 7 does that mean 90something is better than 7? Of course not. Sure it's a lottery but it's not tattlotto odds early on in the pecking order.

in very general terms I'd agree, but there's plenty of proof to the contrary. Name the first round pick duds from your club

Caydn Beetham is our most recent.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Because clubs would fold.

A couple of high flyers seeking some sort of gratification by buying themselves a club would destroy AFL football.

Since the commision was formed, the salary cap and draft, we haven't had to worry about this.

So where did Melbourne put all those Diamond Joe flags? Where are all Collingwood's New Magpies flags?

 

[silky-smooth]

seriously, Collingwood may win 2 or 3 games for the rest of the season - so they are likely to get plenty of picks (and early ones as well). That should be their next season aim from here because they are screwed for this season.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Deej
I don't respect Brisbane's flags anywhere near as much as i do Hawthorn's flags in the 80's. I've said it before, any success or failure in this system is worth about 1/100th of what it was worth in an open system.

Hawthorns were built on having the best zones. If we go back to zoning I want the previous Hawthorn area.

Originally posted by Weaver

In contrast Hawthorn had adjoining Metro and Country zones allowing one admin system and never having to travel more than 100kms. Hawthorn's country zone of Pakenham - Berwick - Frankston was the fastest growing area in Australia and they reaped the rewards. Brereton, Mathews, Mew, Ayres etc all landed in their laps.

Hawthorn benefited far more from the inequities of zoning than St Kilda ever will from priority picks.

Hear Hear

Originally posted by Deej
Are you trying to say a bloke from Frankston will always be a better footballer than a bloke from Mildura? What rubbish, it's totally random where good footballers come from. Dunstall came from Qld.

120,000 people in Frankston growing at 4% have a greater chance than 50,000 people from Mildura growing at 2% but I digress. Going through the past few drafts Hawthorn would have

Goddard (Warragul)
Ball & Judd (Inner East)
T Johnstone (Chelsea)
J White (Franga)
L Brown (Heyfield)
L Power (Balwyn)

Josh Fraser and Luke Hodge aside that is the absolute cream of young Victorians in recent years, all would have gone to Hawthorn as would Angwin, Robert Murphy the Lonie boys etc

it is a fair coincidence.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by MarkT
So where did Melbourne put all those Diamond Joe flags? Where are all Collingwood's New Magpies flags?

Joe was around in the salaray cap and draft days.

I didn't say that these "high flyers" would buy a flag. I said a club. Alah, Eddlestone with the Swans. They can destroy a comp by inflating costs beyond a point the competition can sustain.

Open slather would ultimately kill the comp. Almost happened in the 80's.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by kahuna71
in very general terms I'd agree, but there's plenty of proof to the contrary. Name the first round pick duds from your club

Caydn Beetham is our most recent.

I don't see the point. If it was relevant in an overall context we wouldn't be having this discussion. How anyone can't see a massive difference between a priority pick plus pick 2 or 3 to pick 17 or 18 is beyond me. Anyone who can't, I have a house swap in mind.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Because clubs would fold.

Just as many clubs have folded since the draft/cap was introduced as did in the previous 50 years of open competition. Footscray and Kangaroos have probably never been in such diabolical trouble financially. Your comments are unfounded and unsupported by facts or precedents, in fact there's nothing solid that has happened that would even suggest this statement is anything more than scaremongering opinionated rubbish.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by MarkT
That's a weak defense if you ask me. You get a mkuch much greater chance in the only youth recruiting mechanism there is if you finish last as compared to if you play finals finish say 6th. If these picks were not valuable we'd get one for Andrew Williams, Ben Kinnear and Steve McKee. Of course there is no certainty but how does that change anything at all? If I tell Scott Burns was drafted in the 90's does that make the 90's where you want to be in the draft? Of course not. If I tell you Collingwood drafted Danny Roach at 7 does that mean 90something is better than 7? Of course not. Sure it's a lottery but it's not tattlotto odds early on in the pecking order.

i agree with you that you are advantaged bu having earlier picks and thats ok - it keeps the competition even.
But i keep going back to the ultimate test. Where is this perceived unfair advantage to the recepients of the priority picks ? Where are the premierships, where are the final series for these advantaged teams.
I will change my opinion when someone says - priority picks are unfair because STKilda has won three premierships and no-one looks like coming near them.

Until then the jury is out and the status quo remains

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Hawthorns were built on having the best zones. If we go back to zoning I want the previous Hawthorn area.

I think you'll find we did have a large part of the Hawthorn zone until the early seventies. An impressive list of players that would have otherwise been at StKilda ended up at Hawthorn not long after the change.

 

[R00StaR]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
WTF?

You can only get two first round picks MAX! Any other come from trading you dill!

Which part of “close enough to” don’t you understand

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by kahuna71
because having no money (Dogs, Kangas, Geelong and others) is a guarantee of failure. Get it? And those clubs deserve as much consideration as every other club in most people's eyes. Not in yours, however, as you'd be happy to let them die.

No money does NOT equate to a "guarantee of failure". That is only your opinion and it cannot be substantiated with facts. And no club would die if they all lived within their means.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Joe was around in the salaray cap and draft days.

I didn't say that these "high flyers" would buy a flag. I said a club. Alah, Eddlestone with the Swans. They can destroy a comp by inflating costs beyond a point the competition can sustain.

Open slather would ultimately kill the comp. Almost happened in the 80's.

Lots of things happened in the 80's inside and outside of football. It was the era for over the top ambitions beyond means. Private ownership is another matter though and IMO it is the beginning of the end and shouldn;t be contemplated. If someone bought Collingwood they'd have it without me.

Ultimately it didn't happen - the AFL prospered in a difficult time. The only club that went broke did so without ever going on a spending spree.

In end though, I don't think clubs should be completely protected from themselves. That's a view not amny probably share but nonetheless it's mine. It's really relevant to salary cap issue though and not PP's or even draft issues. If you had open slather but with a salary cap I can;t see how the spending issue and the rich v poor is any different to what it is now. They are seperate issues.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
i agree with you that you are advantaged bu having earlier picks and thats ok - it keeps the competition even.
But i keep going back to the ultimate test. Where is this perceived unfair advantage to the recepients of the priority picks ? Where are the premierships, where are the final series for these advantaged teams.
I will change my opinion when someone says - priority picks are unfair because STKilda has won three premierships and no-one looks like coming near them.

Until then the jury is out and the status quo remains

Arguably an ordinary Collingwood list were prevented from winning back to back flags by one of the absolute best sides of all time who had a salary cap concession and the benefit of a merger. I don't say that to prove any hard done point but if Collingwood had won 2 flags after finishing last and second last what would your view be then?

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Deej
Just as many clubs have folded since the draft/cap was introduced as did in the previous 50 years of open competition. Footscray and Kangaroos have probably never been in such diabolical trouble financially. Your comments are unfounded and unsupported by facts or precedents, in fact there's nothing solid that has happened that would even suggest this statement is anything more than scaremongering opinionated rubbish.

The world has changed in 50 years Deej. We have a lot more egotistical Millionaires than we did 50 years ago (no offence intended).

Put your thinking cap on for a moment. If we went to open competition as you suggest, what would prevent a small number of clubs from pushing player salaries to levels the others couldn’t maintain? The result? Some clubs would over extend trying to make the grade and eventually fold, or others would resign themselves playing with lesser talent and less resources. Not an attractive prospect for all other than a small group of clubs.

“scaremongering” – Deej, you vote liberal don’t you?

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by MarkT
I don't see the point. If it was relevant in an overall context we wouldn't be having this discussion. How anyone can't see a massive difference between a priority pick plus pick 2 or 3 to pick 17 or 18 is beyond me. Anyone who can't, I have a house swap in mind.

Matt McGuire - Pick 21, anyone could have picked him but didn't.
Leigh Fisher - Pick 46, no star yet but is getting a game every week with the saints and contributing well.
Nick Dal Santo - Pick 12 and a superstar. 11 other teams could have picked him.

And many, many more. There are very low numbered duds and very high numbered superstars. If you have early picks it only means you have the choice. What you do with it is up to you, and many choices turn out to be wasted.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by Deej
No money does NOT equate to a "guarantee of failure". That is only your opinion and it cannot be substantiated with facts. And no club would die if they all lived within their means.

no, but it's a fairly safe bloody bet. clown, what world are you living in?